You know, one time this guy dropped a spoon in front of Tesla, and Tesla split the Earth in half!
You sure that wasn’t Chuck Norris?
I was paraphrasing for comedic effect, how’d I do?
Excellent!
Thank you!
A two way radio into an antenna transmitting as little as 50 watts of RF can cause a burn if you touch the antenna while it’s keyed up. You wouldn’t need to touch a broadcast power radiator to feel the heat.
There are three main problems with the commercial development of any type of broadcast electrical power:
[ol][li]Attenuation: Without media losses (exciting air, dust, and other interfering objects) the best you can get is an inverse square drop for omni-directional broadcasts. An ideal planar broadcast would reduce that to strictly inverse and tightly directional would decrease lose even less but then you would have to have finely controlled aiming and alignment.[]Power going to the wrong place: Just talk to someone who lives near an AM tower how easily any metal object can pick up radio waves.[]Getting paid: This is what really killed Tesla’s work. Why would Westinghouse put millions into development of a system that would let them spend millions more each year giving away free energy?[/li]
[/ol]
These issues can be overcome (or at least minimized) with either very short range or highly directional transmissions, but that was not what Tesla was trying to do.
Jonathan
You’ll always get inverse-square dropoff. It’s literally not possible to confine the beam to a plane or line, without a waveguide: Even a laser has inverse-square falloff. Tightening your beam just changes the coefficient on the inverse-square falloff.
That’s why I specified an “ideal” planar. I should have said perfectly directional. Both cases are impossible, but set the unreachable limit below which you cannot go. Even waveguides have some losses (just different ones). And to be practical it woudl not need zero losses, just close enough to line losses to make it competitive. It still leaves other issues, but this one could be overcome.